|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 355 Records
-
1995 (11) TMI 232
... ...
... ... ..... they do not charge anything to the contractors to the sludge and the contractors do not pay the charges but they claim supervision charges from the contractors. Then such heaps of sludge cannot be measured, weighed or revised accounted for. Assuming that the assessee charges something to the contractor, then also it almost negligible. In case of Bansal Industries, the adjudicating authority has found that for some years, the assessee has sold this sludge to some person who purchased it for using in brick manufacture and substitute for lime. There also the price charged as negligible. Assuming that the carbide sludge does fetch some price then also that by itself will not be a criteria to bring sludge into not of excise. rdquo 4. emsp In view of the above, we uphold the impugned order-in-Appeal and consequently reject the appeal with consequential relief to the respondents, if any, according to law, cross objection filed by the respondents also stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (11) TMI 229
Issues involved: Appeal against orders of Commissioner of Customs regarding import of rough marble slabs under DEEC Scheme based on advance licences.
Summary:
1. The appellants, transferees of advance licences, imported raw marble slabs under DEEC Scheme. Customs authorities suspected the slabs were processed, not raw, leading to show cause notices and confirmed orders by Commissioners.
2. The impugned orders required importers to prove goods were made from material similar to that recognized for import, post-export scrutiny and transferability endorsement on licences.
3. Procedure under DEEC Scheme involves scrutiny by customs authorities post-export, audit of export book, and endorsement of transferability on licence, with no need for re-verification at import stage.
4. The main issue was the classification of imported marble slabs as raw or processed. Various experts' reports conflicted on the status of the slabs, with Commissioner relying on one report and disregarding others, leading to orders being set aside for reconsideration.
5. The Commissioner was directed to reevaluate the cases, consider calling experts for examination, and obtain a final report from a specific professor. Valuation concerns were to be addressed if appellants' contentions were not upheld.
6. Appeals allowed, with a directive for prompt disposal of cases, preferably within six months, and a provision to prevent auction of detained goods pending further proceedings.
-
1995 (11) TMI 228
... ...
... ... ..... rein it was held that the High Court is right in concluding that the wholesale price of the goods manufactured by the seller is the wholesale price at which it sells those goods to the buyer, and it is not the wholesale price at which the buyer sells those goods to others. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. In view of the specific plea taken by the respondents that the goods were not manufactured on behalf of M/s. Bajaj Electricals and neither raw material was supplied by them nor have any financial involvements and following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions referred to by the ld. Consultant, we are of the view that mere fixing the brand name does not make customer a manufacturer and accordingly, the price at which the goods are sold by the customers cannot be taken as assessable value in determining the value under Section 4 of the Act. With these observations, the appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 227
Stay declined and the applicant directed to give a personal bond covering the duty amount. ... ... ... ... ..... ld. DR do not appeal to us, because goods were exported not after obtaining DEEC licence but on prior export basis. The question of obtaining DEEC licence or their subsequent transfer might not have been decided at the time of export and may be exports have taken place in the normal course availing Modvat credit. Prima facie, we are unable to accept that when subsequently the Modvat credit is reversed, the benefit of duty free import under transferred licence can be denied. Moreover, provision contained in Condition No. (vi) appears to be to deny double benefit being taken and hence when one benefit is foregone it appears to be prima facie that other benefit cannot be denied. We are not persuaded to grant any blanket stay. However accepting the plea that some safeguard should be provided for securing the revenue, we direct the applicant to give a personal bond covering the duty amount on the basis of which the department should implement the order of the Collector (Appeals).
-
1995 (11) TMI 226
Yarn purchased by Registered Cooperative Societies - Condition of Notifications 47/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990
-
1995 (11) TMI 225
Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... ge of duty while removal is relevant for its assessment, computation and recovery in the Scheme of various provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, once when the goods involved in these cases were admittedly excisable during the relevant time when they were manufactured, then it is the rate of duty applicable on the date of their removal that governs the assessment. Therefore, there cannot be said to be a case of manufacture prior to the levy itself. In that view of the matter we are of the view that the goods concerned in these cases being manufactured at the time when duty was leviable on them, then the rate of duty applicable would be the rate prevailing on the date on which they were removed. Hence, the above-said appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed and the impugned orders of the Collector (Appeals) are hereby set aside. The Orders passed by the Assistant Collector in all the above-said cases are hereby restored.
-
1995 (11) TMI 224
By-product of Caprolactum - Dutiability - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Co. Ltd., there were some sales also we respectfully agree with the rulings of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court and hold that waste liquor I and waste liquor II are not goods for purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. 10. emsp On the question of time-bar, we find that the appellants brought out lucidly in the arguments adduced by the ld. Counsel that all the facts namely the production of waste liquor I and waste liquor II in the course of manufacture of caprolactum and burning of waste liquor I and waste liquor II and production of steam and its utilization for concentrating waste liquor was fully disclosed to the Department. There was no mis-statement of facts or wilful suppression in the instant case. We therefore, hold that the demand is hit by limitation and is not sustainable in law. The question of estoppel now being only of academic interest is not being commented upon. 11. emsp Having regard to the above findings, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1995 (11) TMI 222
... ...
... ... ..... ble value may be redetermined on such verification and in the light of the observations referred above as also on the ratio of the Supreme Court in the MRF case referred to supra. In so redetermining the value the Assistant Commissioner will give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, Hindustan Lever and permit them to adduce evidence as they may have in the matter and may decide redetermination in accordance with law. 7. emsp In the light of the above observations and our findings, the Department rsquo s appeals are also consequently disposed in the above terms. 8. emsp On hearing the learned Counsel and the learned DR, we find that in the case of the appellant, M/s. Allied Processors the same elements of cost and the same submissions are made. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal also of M/s. Allied Processors in the terms as above for a redetermination of the assessable value in accordance with law and after giving the appellant an opportunity to put forth their case.
-
1995 (11) TMI 221
System Software and Application Software - Distinction between ... ... ... ... ..... th the Government rsquo s understanding or with the textual classification. Dr. Bajaj on the other hand, has apparently taken the conceptual aspects as given as he has not set out to give a widened classification. Dr. Bajaj has thereafter gone by the appellants own description of the programmes in the Remarks Column of their list to give his opinion. This opinion, to our mind, furnishes a reasonable basis for classification of software in question as the features which made it difficult for us to accept Professor Sahasrabudhe rsquo s classification are absent in that given by Dr. Bajaj. We commend it therefore, for acceptance. The appellants thus would be eligible for relief in respect of Application Software only to the extent indicated in classification adopted by Dr. Bajaj of National Informatics Centre. 6. emsp Papers are accordingly submitted to the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in compliance with the Supreme Court direction dated 13-2-1995 in A. No. 1 in C.A. No. 6042/94.
-
1995 (11) TMI 220
Manufacture - Photographic/Cinematographic goods - Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of such goods or five thousand rupees whichever is greater. rdquo 13. emsp On examination of the provisions of this Rule in terms of the findings of the Ld. Collector, we find that the allegation is about withholding of information, we observe that withholding of information is not one of the ingredients in Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and hence the imposition of penalty is not sustainable on Shri R.K. Sharma, Commercial Manager. Having regard to the facts, we reduce the penalty on the appellants to Rs. 2.00 lacs. 14. emsp In view of the above findings, the impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (11) TMI 216
`Goods’ - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... remain in the nature of waste, refuse or by-product, as the case may be, and therefore, rule 57D comes to the rescue of the assessees. 20. emsp In view of the above observations and findings, neither any duty is demandable nor any penalty is imposable. 21. emsp I, therefore, agree with the findings of my learned colleagues to the extent that the fact of their non-declaration as final product under Rule 57G does not amount to suppression on their part. Their non-declaration in the classification list also does not amount to suppression as the issue was arguable and could at best be considered as a matter of difference of opnion or interpretation and did not amount to an act to defraud the Government. Therefore, I agree with my learned colleagues rsquo observations regarding time-bar. 22. emsp Accordingly, I also agree that the demands and penalties are required to be set aside and the appeals are required to be allowed with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants.
-
1995 (11) TMI 215
Demand - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... the result, following the ratio of the Tribunal decision the Asean Trading Agency case (Supra), it is held that the goods imported are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 224/85 which was granted to them already at the time of original assessment and clearance of the goods. In view of the above conclusion, the other argument addressed in respect of the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to issue demand for recovery of short levy does not arise for consideration and on this issue we note that West Regional Bench while disposing of the Stay applications in his Order No. 3-5/89, dated 24-2-1989 in the case of M/s. G.K. International has clearly held that provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act are applicable even in the case of mistaken short levy. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, therefore, there is a lot of force in the contention of the appellants herein and accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals allowed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 214
Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... espect of these products either before 1-3-1981 or after 1-3-1981. In the case of Khandelwal Metals referred to by the ld. DR, it was observed that such goods can and do come into existence as waste articles rsquo or rejected articles rsquo during the process of manufacturing that class of article. In the instant case it is clear from the facts and findings by the Collector (Appeals ) that the waste/scraps cannot be held as goods since they were not manufactured as a result of transformation and it was not a resultant product emergent from the raw material into an intermediate or finished product. In view of these findings, we hold that the scope of entry would be limited to such waste and scrap which arises out of part of manufacture of prime product as it was rightly observed by the Collector (Appeals) in his order and since we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, we uphold the impugned order and accordingly the appeal filed by the department is hereby rejected.
-
1995 (11) TMI 213
Modvat - Steel balls ... ... ... ... ..... es, it is clearly seen that the steel balls in question are used in the process of manufacture of the final products and they go directly into the manufacturing stream by themselves and also are used in the manufacture of the finished products, which go into the manufacturing stream resulting in the manufacture of the end-product. In that view of the matter, the steel balls are used in relation to the manufacture of the final products and in that process, it not only grinds the other inputs but also gets itself corroded and becomes a part and parcel of the finished product and thus, they go directly into the manufacturing stream by themselves. In that view of the matter, the steel balls are entitled for the benefit of the MODVAT Credit. Accordingly, Appeal Nos. E-105/94 and E89/95 filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. Appeal No. E-38/94 filed by the assessee, M/s. Magnetix (India) Ltd. is hereby allowed with consequential reliefs. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
-
1995 (11) TMI 212
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... is understood in trade and commercial parlance. The Collector (Appeals) has also noted the Assistant Collector rsquo s observation that the shank fitting in the hard steel casing is necessary before the pellet can be made into a die, as the pellet itself cannot be used without such shank fitting. In that view of the matter, the finding given by the Collector (Appeals) that the components of an item specifically mentioned in the sub-tariff cannot be included in the sub-tariff and also pellets are cleared without putting them in steel casing, i.e. without shank fitting into steel casing, and that they do not take the shape and form of tool/die for the purpose mentioned in the sub-tariff item, is a correct finding arrived at in terms of the finding given in the appellant rsquo s own case by Government of India (referred supra) and after considering the technical literature as understood in the trade parlance, we do not find any merit in this appeal and hence we reject the same.
-
1995 (11) TMI 207
Steel scrap ... ... ... ... ..... ring ld. DR for the Revenue. The Collector after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances confirmed the duty and denied the benefit in terms of Notification 66/72-C.E., dated 1-3-1973 on the ground that such scraps as fresh unused steel melting scraps which generally arise in an integrated ore-based steel plants and since the factory of the assessee is not an integrated ore-based steel plant, benefit under Notification No. 66/73 cannot be extended to the party. In the circumstances he confirmed the duty amount and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the observations made by the Collector while imposing penalty of Rs. l0,000/-, we find that penalty was just and reasonable and we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the adjudicating authority since we have considered all the aspects. In the view we have taken, both the appeals filed by the respective parties are hereby dismissed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 206
Drying machine ... ... ... ... ..... sh 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1103 (TBL) wherein the Tribunal had held that a machine which was an automatic film processor and in addition to film processor was capable of performing other functions of paper processing, was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 11/77-Cus. which did not stipulate that automatic film processor covered thereunder should be exclusively for film processing only. 4. emsp In the case before us, the togglers are used before the actual drying process, and process of cooling comes after the hides and skins have been dried. In the circumstances, the machine being primarily an automatic drier, we consider that it is covered by the exemption Notification No. 42/78-Cus. dated 1-3-1978, and we find no infirmity in the order in appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. 5. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we find no merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue. The appeal is rejected and the impugned order is confirmed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 205
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... listed under Item 84.61(2) of C.T.A.,1975 and therefore squarely are classifiable under Heading 84.61(1). He drew our attention to the copy of the technical opinion given by Deputy Chief Chemist dated 29-7-1985. 3. emsp We have considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the Asstt. Collector has passed an order dated 28-1-1985 holding that the item is classifiable under Item 84.61(1) but the test report referred to by the Department is dated 27-9-1985 and subsequent to the order passed by the adjudicating authority and furthermore it is not clear whether sample of the item in question was considered by the Deputy Chief Chemist while giving opinion and in the absence of any evidence to show that the copy of the report has been supplied to the party and in view of the reasons given by the Collector (Appeals) in upholding the contention of the respondent, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Department and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 204
Needles for medical use ... ... ... ... ..... duced any material to show that the imported item could be so considered. 12. emsp The so called catalogue produced by them does not relate to the item in question and no other material has been produced in support of their contention. 13. emsp We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the Learned DR is correct. 14. emsp We note that the appeals have been rejected both at original as well as first appeal stage as unsubstantiated and even at this stage, they have not produced the relevant catalogue or any other materials which would go to show that the item could be considered as covered by entry No. 19 of the Notification. 15. emsp Even otherwise, it appeals to be a case of importation of Hypodermic needles only and there is nothing to show what has been imported could be considered as intravenous canulae and tubing for long term use lsquo . 16. emsp Hence the appellants claim remain unsubstantiated even at this stage. 17. emsp We, therefore, reject the appeal
-
1995 (11) TMI 203
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ther than bones, sources such as skins and hides and tissues of animals. Paras 3 and 6 of the Supreme Court rsquo s decision are relevant. We also do not agree with the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that Trade Notice had to be construed strictly. The Trade Notice is clarificatory and for proper classification all relevant considerations have to be taken into account. In the circumstances, we do not consider that view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was valid. 13. emsp The benefit of Notification No. 115/87 CE, dated 13-04-1987 issued by the Central Government under Section 11C of the Act, had already been extended to the respondent. 14. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we accept the appeal filed by the Revenue, vacate the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, and confirm the order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Madras in these proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
............
|
9911796707
